216 



THE AMEEICAN MONTHLY 



[November, 



blood, but elsewhere in the body they 

 may live and produce their effects. 



o 



Professor C. H. Stowell's 

 New Magazine. — In our July 

 number, page 138, we made a 

 few remarks concerning the maga- 

 zine recently established by Prof. 

 C. H. Stowell, The Microscope and its 

 Relations to Medicine and Pharmacy. 

 The tone of our article was undoubt- 

 edly critical, while at the same time 

 it cannot be said that it was either 

 discourteous or unfriendly. We are, 

 therefore, surprised at the savage at- 

 tack which it has called forth in the 

 October number of The Microscope. 

 It reminds us of the sorrowful re- 

 mark of the generous man who had 

 just loaned his friend ten dollars : 

 " There goes a friend, for ever gone ; 

 irretrievably gone." We merely indi- 

 cated what seemed to us to be the 

 shortcomings of The Microscope as a 

 scientific periodical, not indeed be- 

 cause of any personal interest in that 

 publication, but for the credit and 

 dignity of American scientific litera- 

 ture; and for this laudable purpose 

 we have been made the subject of a 

 disgraceful personal attack, which, so 

 long as we allow its unjust accusations 

 and implications to pass without re- 

 ply, is far more humiliating to the 

 writer than to ourselves. Surely we 

 cannot descend to refute such charges, 

 nor do we expect them to injure us 

 in the least. However, since the Edi- 

 tor of The Microscope fails to appre- 

 ciate the value of friendl}'^ criticism, 

 we will now supplement our previous 

 article by two quotations from disin- 

 terested persons. The first is from a 

 correspondent who writes as follows : — 



" Your notice of The Microscope and 

 its Relatioji to Medicine and Pharmacy, 

 is severe, as it should be. I sent for a 

 specimen copy and I fully agree with your 

 remarks. " 



The second is from The Northern 



Microscopist (London) : — 

 'This is' a bi-monthly American maga- 

 ne, and we scarcely have made up our 



minds whether it is intended as a scientific 



or serio-comic journal. There are one or 

 two good articles contained within its 

 pages, but very many things we certainly 

 object to. We shall probably abstract for 

 next month a paper, " The Bacteria Fal- 

 lacy Illustrated," in order to see what is 

 thought of it on our side, but we do not 

 quite see what the following cutting has 

 to do with microscopy, it appears to refer 

 more to the advertising column than to 

 this science : — 



" Now that the warm season is with us, 

 bringing its usual discomfort and actual 

 disease, we would call the attention of 

 our professional readers to a remedy which 

 we have used in cholera infantum with 

 marked benefit. Physicians have reported 

 in its favor from every direction. We refer 

 to Lactopeptine, the formula of which can 

 be found on our advertising page 17." * 



" Maltine," who is a two-page advertis- 

 er, has half a page of matter on page TJ 

 devoted to his interests. A microscopical 

 journal seems hardly the place to puff 

 quack medicines. The " Items, " too, 

 might be omitted with considerable im- 

 provement to the journal. 



Usually we are quite apt to say just 

 what we think ; but in regard to The 

 Microscope, we have been reluctant to 

 express ourselves freely, lest the se- 

 verity of our criticisms should lead 

 our readers to impute to us some ani- 

 mosity toward its editor, which does 

 not exist. All we have to say is that 

 The Microscope, as a pretended expo- 

 nent of microscopical science, as an 

 American scientific paper, fully de- 

 serves and receives our condemnation. 

 The October number contains a 

 rambling, nonsensical letter from a 

 correspondent, who writes under the 

 no77i de plume of " Grey Beard." On 

 page 114 there is a sensational, and 

 highly improbable, story about Mr. 

 Charles Darwin and Dr. Hahn's dis- 

 covery of " fossil organisms in mete- 

 orites," which discovery, by the way, 

 we have not deemed sufficiently au- 

 thentic to deserve mention in these 

 columns. Then there are some sen- 

 sational, very newspaperish articles 

 about adulterations and poisonous 

 articles of food, which should be ex- 



* Perhaps it is proper for us to say that we 

 quote the above "puff " free of charge. — Ed. 



